Innerrantcy

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How likely do you think it is that the equation is true?

Are you asking for percentages? If so I have no idea.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I do not 'believe' that 5x5=25 is true in a decimal system because I've done the calculations before
or because of tests or whatever.

I know it is true because of the definition of numbers in a decimal system is clear and simple
and the definitions of multiplication and equality are simple, and that the numbers and arithmetic
arguments are appli ...[text shortened]... a proper fashion (unlike 5x5=44).

This is inerrant based on the definitions.

Nemesio

And this is based upon your conception of what the decimal system is. Therefore, if you have an accurate perception of what the decimal system is and an accurate perception of how the numbers in question play a role in such a system then you have discovered the truth. However, some people cannot even decide if our reality is even real. If so, then your percieved reality is only that. It is ONLY a perception and not a reality.

Originally posted by whodey
Are you asking for percentages? If so I have no idea.

Would you say that it is over 90% likely to be true?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Would you say that it is over 90% likely to be true?

I just got done saying that I have no idea what a % would be. As a guess, however, I would assume it to be above 90%.

Originally posted by whodey
And this is based upon your conception of what the decimal system is. Therefore, if you have an accurate perception of what the decimal system is and an accurate perception of how the numbers in question play a role in such a system then you have discovered the truth. However, some people cannot even decide if our reality is even real. If so, then your percieved reality is only that. It is ONLY a perception and not a reality.

No. It is based upon a definition. That's is what makes it inerrant.

I mean, do you think that 2=2 is something inerrant, or could you be 'perceiving' something incorrectly there?

If the latter, then how does anything have any meaning, like even this conversation? It's all to be
received with skepticism.

Yes, of course, if I said 2=3 is true, obviously it's a misconception or misunderstanding or
misapplication. But that's not the fault of the system, but of the user.

The proper application of logic will yield inerrant truths within the system discussed, just like the
proper application of mathematics will.

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
I just got done saying that I have no idea what a % would be. As a guess, however, I would assume it to be above 90%.

What equivocation! You assume it's above 90%?!

You can't even say that you're 99.9998% sure that 5x5=25?!?

Why should we trust anything you say if you aren't sure of even this rudimentary fact mathematical
statement?! You're waiting for God to come down and assert it or something? If you are unsure and
not confident with this simple statement, how can you seriously expect anybody to take anything
you say seriously when it's about something complex and elusive like theology?

Dr Scribbs: I'm 100% sure it's true.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
What equivocation! You assume it's above 90%?!

You can't even say that you're 99.9998% sure that 5x5=25?!?

Why should we trust anything you say if you aren't sure of even this rudimentary fact mathematical
statement?! You're waiting for God to come down and assert it or something? If you are unsure and
not confident with this simple stateme ...[text shortened]... ng complex and elusive like theology?

Dr Scribbs: I'm 100% sure it's true.

Nemesio

As Wittgenstein said, there are statements that—if we can’t be certain of them—then our whole foundation of knowledge—and even inquiry—and discourse crumbles.

Our language games simply no longer work, and we must fall dumb.

If I said: “You know, I’m sure that 2 = 2”; you would rightly wonder if there wasn’t something radically amiss with my thinking, that I thought I needed to add that “I’m sure..”

Of course, given the nature of this discourse, my statement of surety might have some relevance...

Originally posted by vistesd
Of course, given the nature of this discourse...

What, that it's going to crumble because whodey wants certainty in things like God and stuff but
can't say whether he can probably maybe possibly plausibly kinda might be able to sorta think that
perhaps 5x5=25 is somewhat more than 90% likely to be true?

Is that what you're saying?

I'm going to bed.

5x5=25 is maybe 90% true! Whatever!!

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio


Dr Scribbs: I'm 100% sure it's true.

I am too, because I can deduce it from the axioms governing arithmetic, which is just what it means for a claim in such a system to be true. The deduction constitutes the entirety of the pertinent information bearing on the claim, hence there is no uncertainty.

Somewhat interestingly, however, I am not 0% or 100% certain about all claims of number theory. For example, I'd estimate my confidence in the claim
"44887691022537878243 is prime" at being very near 50%.

Here, my confidence is close to 50% because I have considered very little of the relevant information. I know it's not divisible by 2, or 3, or 4, but there are lots of other potential divisors I simply haven't considered, so it is a proposition about which I will remain very ignorant for a long time to come, most likely until Jesus calls me home.

I think that royalchicken was at one time working on developing a metric for computing likelihood estimates for such a class of number theory claims whose deductive computations are intractable, yet for which partial information is readily obtainable.

You could also imagine me in 2nd grade or whenever I was just learning my multiplication table being, say, 90% confident in the claim "8*6=48" when called upon in class. Here, there is uncertainty because at this stage in my education, the multiplication table was something I had partially rather than perfectly memorized. If I had it 90% memorized, say, then it was 90% likely that this particular product was one I was recalling correctly. This is a scenario in which vistesd's idea might make sense; it might be very meaningful for the teacher to ask, "Are you sure?," with respect to the sort of uncertainty I just described.


Whodey's claim of uncertainty, on the other hand, makes no sense, since it amounts to "What if the axioms are false, or the rules of deduction are incorrect?"

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I am too, because I can deduce it from the axioms governing arithmetic, which is just what it means for a claim in such a system to be true. The deduction constitutes the entirety of the pertinent information bearing on the claim, hence there is no uncertainty.

Somewhat interestingly, however, I am not 0% or 100% certain about all claims o ...[text shortened]... ecalling correctly.

Whodey's claim of uncertainty, on the other hand, makes no sense.

Do you recommend a book in critical thinking? I want to do some reading?

Originally posted by ahosyney
Do you recommend a book in critical thinking? I want to do some reading?

For you, I'd recommend a class with an instructor. You need a full blown course of instruction rather than just a reference or refresher. If you really want to try on your own, I guess you could start here: http://www.virtualsalt.com/think/introct.htm

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
For you, I'd recommend a class with an instructor. You need a full blown course of instruction rather than just a reference or refresher. If you really want to try on your own, I guess you could start here: http://www.virtualsalt.com/think/introct.htm

Thank you for your help

Originally posted by ahosyney
If that is not possible for me, Is there any other hope?.

http://www.virtualsalt.com/think/introct.htm

You could also send a private message to bbarr. He is a professional philosopher. Tell him Cribs sent you.

Originally posted by Nemesio
What, that it's going to crumble because whodey wants certainty in things like God and stuff but
can't say whether he can probably maybe possibly plausibly kinda might be able to sorta think that
perhaps 5x5=25 is somewhat more than 90% likely to be true?

Is that what you're saying?

I'm going to bed.

5x5=25 is maybe 90% true! Whatever!!

Nemesio

You ought to go to bed! I'm agreeing with you!

Originally posted by Nemesio
What, that it's going to crumble because whodey wants certainty in things like God and stuff but
can't say whether he can probably maybe possibly plausibly kinda might be able to sorta think that
perhaps 5x5=25 is somewhat more than 90% likely to be true?

Is that what you're saying?

I'm going to bed.

5x5=25 is maybe 90% true! Whatever!!

Nemesio

Precisely. If he can’t say with certainty that 5 x 5 = 25, then I know longer know if anything he says has any meaning, even if I comprehend the words.

In this discourse (which is partly about certainty), to say that I am certain that 5 x 5 = 25 may make some sense. In ordinary discourse, that “I am certain” adds no meaningful content to the statement “5 x 5 = 25,” and you would likely think it odd if I added it.

If I say: “I have a toothache.”

And you ask: “Are you certain?”

I might respond: “What do you mean? Of course I’m certain!”

But if you saw me rubbing my jaw and muttering: “You know, I’m sure that I have a toothache”, you might well wonder: “Why did he say that? Could he possibly have any doubt about whether or not he has a toothache?”

In ordinary discourse, it ought to be enough to say 5 x 5 = 25—and assume that is beyond question to anyone who has a basic knowledge of arithmetic. It ought not to be arguable.

If 5 x 5 = 25 is arguable, or “I have a toothache” is arguable—then what basis is there for coherent discourse? Or coherent thought? Such kinds of statements go to the foundation.